Skaters retiring due to impression that judges have "dropped" them?

The Crone/Poirier thread has me wondering if any skaters actually did in fact retire due to their impression/belief that they were being no longer "supported" by judges anymore - they were being dropped in favour of (usually) younger competition?

The Crone/Poirier thread has me wondering if any skaters actually did in fact retire due to their impression/belief that they were being no longer "supported" by judges anymore - they were being dropped in favour of (usually) younger competition?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that you would ever get any to admit that was the real reason. And sometimes the rise of the younger competitor coincides with the decline in skills of the older competitor...

The Crone/Poirier thread has me wondering if any skaters actually did in fact retire due to their impression/belief that they were being no longer "supported" by judges anymore - they were being dropped in favour of (usually) younger competition?

Then you have the skaters who remain eligible after their skills have declined and they're no longer considered contenders. Some people just love competing for its own sake. Elvis Stojko, Elena Liashenko and Vanessa Gusmeroli come to mind.

Aren't they the poster children for skilled veterans with no deterioration being brutally dumped for younger, edgier compatriots?

Guismeroli seems to be another skater who the judges really wanted to not see (even though some of her best programs were after they dumped her). But then her 97 bronze was kind of a fluke (basically the judges not leaving room between Kwan and Lipinski to slot Slutskaya where she should have been) so maybe they were never behind her (though her skating has aged pretty well according to the French ladies thread).

Petrova/Tihonov were another pair that seemed to be dumped but in actuality I think the judges never liked them much (personally I enjoyed them more than either S/P or the over-hyped B/S)

*Do judges ever consciously decide, individually or collectively, to lower a skater's marks compared to what they had received in the past in order to promote younger or otherwise now more (politically?) favored skaters? I.e., do judges ever "drop" skaters in an intentional way?

Or do judges mark those skaters lower because they don't perform as well as they had in the past, because the judges have now seen enough of their skating to recognize persistent weaknesses that they overlooked in the past, or because the standard of the field as a whole has improved to the point that previously medalworthy skills will no longer cut it?

Or, with IJS, have the rules changed in ways that make the skater's best skills less valuable than in previous years, or that make other skaters' skills more valuable in comparison?

*Whether judges ever "drop" skaters or not, or whether they do sometimes but maybe not in this particular case, do skaters perceive a decline in their results as being primarily a result of judges choosing to withdraw support? And if so, do they

Which of the above questions is this thread more interested in?

*OK, so if we think it (judges dropping skaters, or skaters perceiving themselves to have been dropped) does happen sometimes, then the question is, which times? What are good examples?

*OK, so if we think it (judges dropping skaters, or skaters perceiving themselves to have been dropped) does happen sometimes, then the question is, which times? What are good examples?

Click to expand...

Tanja Szewczenko? I forget the year and competition but I remember seeing an SP that theoretically might have been described as clean that got really low scores. The Eurosport commentator said something to the effect that she'd been dismissed and told to leave by the marks.

He brought up the issue of her landing technique (which involved disguised two footed landings a lot) and the suggestion was that the judges were sick of it.

Tanja Szewczenko? I forget the year and competition but I remember seeing an SP that theoretically might have been described as clean that got really low scores. The Eurosport commentator said something to the effect that she'd been dismissed and told to leave by the marks.

He brought up the issue of her landing technique (which involved disguised two footed landings a lot) and the suggestion was that the judges were sick of it.

Click to expand...

There is also a huge score difference between a "clean" skater that gets all level ones and a skater who gets all level fours who has a fall.

If a world champions has a bad skate and falls to 4th it doesn't mean the judges have dumped them for another skater it means they had a bad skate and need to do better next time. They can be world champ again, it has happened before.

Interpreting 6.0 scores was kind of like reading omens. There was no direct connection between the numbers and the judges' thought processes, and no official way for judges to convey their thought processes to the skaters or other observers. Even when they were allowed to talk to skaters about their skating, they weren't allowed to compare to other skaters.

So people tried to figure out what message the judges were trying to send. But the process was mostly guesswork. Who knows when they got it right and when they were making up reasons the judges never thought of in the first place.

And of course different judges may have come up with the same numbers or same rankings through completely different processes and may have been sending completely different "messages."

With IJS, we can see a lot more clearly why skaters scored the way they did technically,. We might disagree with the rules or the values in the Scale of Values or with specific calls by the tech panel or specific GOEs by some judges. But we don't have to guess how much each element was worth -- it's all spelled out in detail on the protocols.

The PCS are still pretty vague and often require the same kind of guesswork, but at least there is some separation into different aspects of the whole program instead of lumping, say, musical interpretation and carriage into the same number.

Moniotte&Lavanchy are the only ones I can remember being vocal about their dropping. NOt surprising though, they went from 4th to 11th in a very infamous and obvious way. They were still going to retire after Nagano though so I dont think they really count for the topic question.

I would say Belbin and Agosto (dropped a bit in favour of Davis and White, although it wasn't an extreme case). I think that was a case in which the dropping might have been deserved though as Davis and White improved a lot, and Belbin and Agosto of course never gave that as a reason for retiring.

I agree that B&A were dropped a bit in favor of D&W but not IMO because they were passed by a better team. IMO while V&M were clearly (to me) the rightfull winners of the gold, I felt that B&A was more than good enough to fight it out with D&W to decide the gold and silver (despite my love for DomShabs they should not have been on the podium).

I can't argue with those who still judge events according to whose programs touched them more but just looking at the Olympic champions from 2010 it seems that having the most creative attention grabbing program means nothing these days. It seems more about technical prowess and supposedly who performs better on the day. Icedance has followed the same pattern as the singles with programs looking like a display of elements.

Anyway (I may soon regret engaging in B&A conversation) I do feel as if B&A were feeling out which way the wind was blowing all season and I do feel (though I could be wrong; as was mentioned previously none of the skaters will ever admit to this) that if things had gone differently and they had earned at least a bronze they would have done one or two more seasons. Watching Tanith and Ben skate during the Disson shows, I feel that they are only beginning to peak as skaters.

I have a "love/hate" relationship with L&T. Judging from their 99/00 season I do get the feeling that even if they had shown up with amazing difficult programs the judges just decided that they didn't like them. I felt they were sort of an American version of DelShoes in that the judges wouldn't even reward the team even when they .

OTOH, I can only speculate when it comes to L&T because although they got sympathy from the commentators and fans for being cast as the poor put upon American team, L&T rarely stepped up to the plate. When they had good competitive programs those programs were often mired with mistakes. And the final two seasons they competed, it looked as if L&T happened to wander into a competition so decided to entertain the crowd with an exhibition. In their case I think both the judges and how team L&T were handed that was the issue.

I know that F&S retired because of injury but I also think their low scores in the FD at Europeans also might have played a part. It does seem as if Federica and Massimo have reassed having looked at the current field and have decided to try again. I am happy to have them back as F&S are one of only a few "old school" teams who can mix creativity with technical skill. This past season was the first time since I've been following icedance heavy duty where I was bored by almost every SD and FD. I can count on one hand and have a couple of fingers left over how many dances really caught and held my attention.

Sometimes I watch a skater and think if they hadn't won their last competition they never would have won this time. But then I look at skaters like Paul Wiley, Rudy Galindo, Shizuka Arakawa, and Miki Ando who were considered past their prime (and probably advised by many people to quit) and yet they were able to come back strong and the judges were willing to give them the medals. So it can't be all politics, performance does matter.

Sometimes I watch a skater and think if they hadn't won their last competition they never would have won this time. But then I look at skaters like Paul Wiley, Rudy Galindo, Shizuka Arakawa, and Miki Ando who were considered past their prime (and probably advised by many people to quit) and yet they were able to come back strong and the judges were willing to give them the medals. So it can't be all politics, performance does matter.